For those of a bleak disposition the Australian policy debate over the last few weeks has been nothing short of harrowing. Warnings that the sky is about to fall in (the form of global warming caused by climate change) have been echoing across the policy debate for months and months.
The contribution of the public service was supposed to be a matter between Ministers and their departmental heads. In short, under the system that is supposed to apply, people like Ken Henry should be seen and not heard – well, not by the general public anyway.
Then, in a major contribution to the fear factor gripping the citizenry, a federal parliamentary committee warned that the seas would be rising as well – to such an extent, in fact, that Victoria’s Westernport bay faces inundation.
This is particularly serious news for people who live in Hastings. Then, to top everything off, in a public address by the Secretary of the federal Department of Treasury, Mr Ken Henry, the prospect was raised of Australia’s population reaching 30 million people with Sydney and Melbourne growing to 7 million each (or thereabouts) by 2050.
On being questioned about this forecast, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd indicated that he was at least sanguine, if not slightly excited about the prospect of Australia experiencing such growth. Of course, Rudd’s demeanour probably reflected the fact that he might not be around by 2050, let alone still be prime minister. Mr Henry’s view, on the other hand, was much more pessimistic.
Where, he wondered, would Australia find the environmental resources to deal with such population change. If it is possible to step back from the ceaseless official predictions of ecological doom and destruction for a moment, Mr Henry’s contribution to the public debate last week threw some light on another interesting development in Australian politics.
The Secretary’s speech on a wide range of topics, clearly made for the purpose of public consumption, was a sign of how the role of a senior public servant in Australian politics seems to have changed.
In the old days, the idea of a Westminster system was that a division of labour existed between politicians and public servants. Ministers were considered to be the appropriate oracles on political matters because they were the ones who had run in an election, had been elected to parliament, and whose party had won enough seats to form a government.
The contribution of the public service was supposed to be a matter between Ministers and their departmental heads. In short, under the system that is supposed to apply, people like Ken Henry should be seen and not heard – well, not by the general public anyway.
Under the old standards, if Mr Henry wanted to make a contribution to the policy debate he would have had to do so via his responsible minister.
The fact that Mr Henry now seems to be a general contributor to the policy debate (not only on the economy, but, it would seem, now also on matters ranging from the environment through to urban planning) shows that the old standards clearly no longer apply.
There is a rather interesting situation developing where senior public servants like Mr Henry are becoming almost cult figures in the policy debate. As riveting as this may be for journalists and other political spectators, the fact is that Mr Henry’s recent performance was completely contrary to the spirit of the Westminster system.
The erosion of Westminster standards probably goes back to changes made to the public service by Bob Hawke that were designed to make departmental heads more responsive to the government. The encouragement of cult-like status for departmental heads really commenced under John Howard’s prime ministership, however, where the heads of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet like Max Moore-Wilton suddenly became almost as readily identifiable as the prime minister himself!
When he became prime minister, Kevin Rudd hinted at a return to a more conventional Westminster approach to the management of the public service.
After all, his party had been critical of the Howard government not least because of allegations that a ‘politicised’ public service had failed Australia on matters like the selling of Australian wheat to Sadam Hussein’s Iraq. If Mr Rudd is serious about returning to old standards, he might start with Ken Henry.
He might suggest that Mr Henry let Mr Rudd’s ministers do the talking to the public about policy. Alternatively, if Mr Henry wants to talk about the future direction of population policy in Australia, he perhaps should contemplate leaving the public service and running for parliament instead.
Dr Economou is a senior lecturer in Politics at Monash University.